Agenda item

Agenda item

125573/FO/2019 - Plot 11 First Street, Deansgate Ward

The report of the Director of Planning, Building Control and Licensing is enclosed.

Minutes:

This application is for the construction of four buildings of heights varying from 10 storeys to 45 storeys together comprising Co-living bedspaces (use class Sui Generis) and associated amenity facilities, with ground floor commercial units

(Use classes A3 (Café / Restaurant and D2 (Gym)), private amenity space and public realm comprising hard and soft landscaping, car parking and cycle facilities and other associated works.

 

Consideration of this application was deferred at the meeting of the Planning and

Highways Committee on 30July 2020 to enable a site visit to take place to allow

Members to assess the impact that the proposed development would have on nearby listed buildings. The site visit was undertaken on the morning of 27 August 2020.

 

A Planning Officer addressed the Committee with information about the application.

 

The applicant’s agent attended the meeting and addressed the Committee.

 

A Local Ward Councillor gave objection to the proposal on the grounds of the height of the buildings with the tallest being two storeys shorter that the Beetham Tower which the Local Ward Councillor felt was not in keeping with this area, stating that First Street was comprised of mid-rise towers of public realm usage. The Local Ward Councillor further stated that the development would overshadow areas of Deansgate and Hulme and sit uneasily with the immediately local aspects of Manchester’s industrial history. The Local Ward Councillor made comment that the Co-living aspect is in conflict with current space standard and felt concerned around the impact of the Coronovirus restrictions when applied to living in such dwellings. Further comment was made about the large increase of population in this Local Ward from this development alone and how that would present with more traffic and round the clock disturbances from food deliveries and taxis. In conclusion the Local Ward Councillor stated that whilst the open green space proposed as part of the development was welcomed, it was outweighed by the harm that allowing this application would present on the local surrounding area.

 

The Chair invited the Planning Officer to address the concerns of the Local Ward Councillor.

 

The Planning Officer questioned the comment that the building was too tall by stating that the site was situated at the main gateway entrance to the City Centre from the Airport and South Manchester motorway network and that this would be a prime location for such a development, being built on open land and away from the more historic aspects of the City Centre. The Planning Officer requested that the Committee take note of the inclusion of a park on the site and that the site in its current state was overdue for development.

 

The Chair invited the Committee to comment and ask questions.

 

A Member raised concerns around the close proximity of this development to listed buildings at Mackintosh Mill and Cambridge Street Mill, the loss of residential amenities in the north side of Hulme, the potential for a conversion plan if the Co-living scheme was not successful, if short term tenancies for Co-living (i.e. 2 weeks) were to be considered and any arrangements concerning the access and egress of vehicles to and from the site.

 

The Chair invited the Planning Officer to address the Member’s concerns.

 

The Planning Officer stated that the closest aspect of the proposed development to the listed buildings is lower than the previous proposal for this site and lower than other consented similar schemes. Addressing the issue of a conversion plan the Planning Officer confirmed that this had been taken into account and would not require any structural work. On the subject of short term lettings the Planning Officer confirmed that this type of arrangement is already occurring in the City Centre in serviced apartments and hotels and that the Co-living method of living addressed the needs of this style of living arrangement. In conclusion the Planning Officer confirmed that there is an access strategy for the First Street site as a whole.

 

Further concerns were raised by a Member on the previous proposal for this site having provision for a Primary School and a medical practice which was not included in this proposal, having a public green space instead. The Member questioned the lack of residential community facilities.

 

The Planning Officer responded to address the concerns and state that a development nearby would house a Primary School and that previously the implied demand for public use amenities was underused and led to empty commercial units finally adding that the inclusion of green, open space would be easily accessible from Hulme.

 

Councillor Davies proposed the committee be minded to refuse the application and this was seconded by Councillor Lyons.

 

The Committee voted and gave their support to the decision of minded to refuse.

 

(Councillor Monaghan abstained from vote due to a poor internet connection which did not allow her to take part in the full consideration of the application).

 

Decision

 

Minded to refuse on the basis of the impact on neighbouring residential areas in Hulme and also the development is in conflict with policies on current space standard and previous reports from the Executive.

 

The application was deferred and the Director of Planning asked to bring a report back which addresses the concerns raised and whether there are reasons for refusal that could be sustained.

 

(Councillor N Ali left the meeting at this point and did not return).

Supporting documents: